June 04, 2014 "ICH" - Pay close attention to Steven Starr’s guest column, “The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons.” http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014...clear-weapons/ Washington thinks nuclear war can be won and is planning for a first strike on Russia, and perhaps China, in order to prevent any challenge to Washington’s world hegemony.

The plan is far advanced, and the implementation of the plan is underway. As I have reported previously, US strategic doctrine was changed and the role of nuclear missiles was elevated from a retaliatory role to an offensive first strike role. US anti-ballistic missile (ABM) bases have been established in Poland on Russia’s frontier, and other bases are planned. When completed Russia will be ringed with US missile bases.

Anti-ballistic missiles, known as “star wars,” are weapons designed to intercept and destroy ICBMs. In Washington’s war doctrine, the US hits Russia with a first strike, and whatever retaliatory force Russia might have remaining is prevented from reaching the US by the shield of ABMs.

The reason Washington gave for the change in war doctrine is the possibility that terrorists might obtain a nuclear weapon with which to destroy an American city. This explanation is nonsensical. Terrorists are individuals or a group of individuals, not a country with a threatening military. To use nuclear weapons against terrorists would destroy far more than the terrorists and be pointless as a drone with a conventional missile would suffice.

The reason Washington gave for the ABM base in Poland is to protect Europe from Iranian ICBMs. Washington and every European government knows that Iran has no ICBMs and that Iran has not indicated any intent to attack Europe.

No government believes Washington’s reasons. Every government realizes that Washington’s reasons are feeble attempts to hide the fact that it is creating the capability on the ground to win a nuclear war.

Another spot on analysis by PCR. Are Americans too far gone to care? It would appear so, judging from the partisan tripe on this board. MHG

The Lies Grow More AudaciousBy Paul Craig Roberts

June 07, 2014 "ICH" - If there were any doubts that Western “leaders” live in a fantasy make-believe world constructed out of their own lies, the G-7 meeting and 70th anniversary celebration of the Normandy landing dispelled the doubts.

The howlers issuing from these occasions are enough to split your sides. Obama and his lap dog Cameron described the Normandy landing on June 6, 1944, as “the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known” and took all the credit for the US and Britain for the defeat of Hitler. No mention was made of the Soviet Union and the Red Army, which for three years prior to the Normandy landing had been fighting and defeating the Wehrmacht.

The Germans lost World War II at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought from August 23, 1942 until February 2, 1943, when most of the remnants of the powerful German Sixth Army surrendered, including 22 generals.

Nineteen months previously the largest invasion force ever assembled on planet earth invaded Russia across a one thousand mile front. Three million crack German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months.

By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up. When the so-called “allies” (a term which apparently excludes Russia) landed in France, there was little to resist them. The best forces remaining to Hitler were on the Russian front, which collapsed day by day as the Red Army approached Berlin.

The Red Army won the war with Germany. The Americans and the British showed up after the Wehrmacht was exhausted and in tatters and could offer little resistance. Joseph Stalin believed that Washington and London stayed out of the war until the last minute and left Russia with the burden of defeating Germany.

Another spot on analysis by PCR. Are Americans too far gone to care? It would appear so, judging from the partisan tripe on this board. MHG

The Lies Grow More AudaciousBy Paul Craig Roberts

June 07, 2014 "ICH" - If there were any doubts that Western “leaders” live in a fantasy make-believe world constructed out of their own lies, the G-7 meeting and 70th anniversary celebration of the Normandy landing dispelled the doubts.

The howlers issuing from these occasions are enough to split your sides. Obama and his lap dog Cameron described the Normandy landing on June 6, 1944, as “the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known” and took all the credit for the US and Britain for the defeat of Hitler. No mention was made of the Soviet Union and the Red Army, which for three years prior to the Normandy landing had been fighting and defeating the Wehrmacht.

The Germans lost World War II at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought from August 23, 1942 until February 2, 1943, when most of the remnants of the powerful German Sixth Army surrendered, including 22 generals.

Nineteen months previously the largest invasion force ever assembled on planet earth invaded Russia across a one thousand mile front. Three million crack German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months.

By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up. When the so-called “allies” (a term which apparently excludes Russia) landed in France, there was little to resist them. The best forces remaining to Hitler were on the Russian front, which collapsed day by day as the Red Army approached Berlin.

The Red Army won the war with Germany. The Americans and the British showed up after the Wehrmacht was exhausted and in tatters and could offer little resistance. Joseph Stalin believed that Washington and London stayed out of the war until the last minute and left Russia with the burden of defeating Germany.

Loonies like Brit cannot answer the question, why is the US arming/training Islamic rebels in Syria? Last year -- Al Qaeda militia over-ran the headquarters of the so called "moderate" rebels -- basically kicked them out of the country.

This is probably why Kurds and Christians in Syria are now fighting alongside Hezbollah and the Syrian army against Al Qaeda.

So why is Obama supporting "moderate" Islamicists?

National Security Adviser Susan Rice says she is "heartbroken" at the devastation and casualties in Syria. So why is she making the situation worse?

I thought Al Qaeda was the enemy? Duh--WTF??
MHG

US Providing “Lethal” Support to Syrian Rebels

By Agence France-Presse

June 07, 2014 "ICH" - "AFP" - - - President Barack Obama’s top foreign policy advisor Susan Rice on Friday said Washington was providing “lethal and non-lethal” support to select members of the Syrian opposition, offering more detail than usual on US assistance.
Top Obama administration officials typically decline to say exactly what equipment, arms or ammunition the United States is providing to moderate Syrian opposition forces.

But President Barack Obama said in a major foreign policy speech last week that the United States would “ramp up” support for rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad.

National Security Advisor Susan Rice said in an interview with CNN while she was traveling with Obama to D-Day 70th anniversary celebrations in Normandy that she was heartbroken about the carnage in Syria’s civil war.

“That’s why the United States has ramped up its support for the moderate vetted opposition, providing lethal and non-lethal support where we can to support both the civilian opposition and the military opposition.”

Officials normally publicly refuse to comment on exactly what they are doing to train opposition groups.

National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden declined to say whether Rice was announcing a new US policy by apparently being more open on US assistance.

“We’re not in a position to detail all of our assistance, but as we’ve made clear, we provide both military and non-military assistance to the opposition,” Hayden said.

Signs of a deepening commitment to Syrian rebels come three weeks after Obama met the head of the opposition National Coalition, Ahmad Jarba in Washington last month.

Officially, US support for rebel fighters in Syria has been limited to non-lethal aid amounting to $287 million, though the CIA reportedly participates in a secret programme to train moderate rebels in Jordan.

Loonies like Brit cannot answer the question, why is the US arming/training Islamic rebels in Syria? Last year -- Al Qaeda militia over-ran the headquarters of the so called "moderate" rebels -- basically kicked them out of the country.

This is probably why Kurds and Christians in Syria are now fighting alongside Hezbollah and the Syrian army against Al Qaeda.

So why is Obama supporting "moderate" Islamicists?

National Security Adviser Susan Rice says she is "heartbroken" at the devastation and casualties in Syria. So why is she making the situation worse?

The German surface navy was either destroyed or bottled up by 1941 and their air force was reduced significantly in the BoB.....all before Germany was at war with Russia.

The Germans were defeated at El Alamein the year before Stalingrad.

German cities were being reduced to ashes by the RAF and USAF. All before D day.

No one denies Russia's sacrifice, but Stalin was another Hitler, a liar and genocidal maniac. But he's your new hero??

Go and read some history, wacko, and take the idiot PCR with you.

This wacko nonsense passes for reality in America today?

Rommel's defeat in N Africa was not decisive -- nor was the allied bombing of German cities.

Brit needs to read INSIDE THE THIRD REICH by Albert Speer, the genius who took Hitler's war machine underground. Nazi war production never faltered despite the allied bombing.

The critical factor was the shortage of fuel to run the tanks and planes. Witness the battle of the bulge - a desperate attempt by the Nazis to break through the allied line and capture a huge fuel depot.

This is why Stalingrad was decisive. Had the Nazis won this key battle they would have seized the oil fields of the Caucasus -- and solved the fuel problem.

Hitler would then have concentrated his forces in the West. The landing at Normandy would have ended in disaster - or more likely Churchill and FDR would have canceled it.

German tanks were superior. German fighter jets -- introduced in the last months of the war -- were far superior to anything the US had.

With unlimited fuel -- Goering's jet fighters would have swept the USAF and the RAF from the skies over Germany. Hitler would have maintained control over Europe.

The US would have had to use atomic weapons to win the war.

Hence the importance of Stalingrad.

The moral question remains -- the fact that the US stood aside and allowed the Nazis and Russians to duke it out -- destroying one another.
PCR is right on. Brit and others like him are worse than stupid -- they are fools. MHG

The 1939 non aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin (which enabled both to carve up Poland) ceased to exist when Hitler launched operation Barbarossa in 1941 -- one of the most massive invasions in history.